Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the oath of office means to clerk Kim Davis
Newsday ^ | 9-3-15 | Noah Feldman

Posted on 09/04/2015 7:37:31 AM PDT by formerRepublicant

What's in an oath?

That fascinating question arose as part of a crusade by Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis to seek a religious exemption from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Before the U.S. Supreme Court put the kibosh on her claim, Davis in her legal brief argued that she understood her oath of office "to mean that, in upholding the federal and state constitutions and laws, she would not act in contradiction to the moral law of God."

Why? Because her oath included the words, "So help me God." Of course, the oath of office prescribed by the U.S. Constitution doesn't include those words. George Washington famously added them after taking the oath of office as president, and tradition has maintained them. Davis's claim, however, is nevertheless intriguing. It implies that obedience to divine law is somehow baked in to one's constitutional duties and obligations.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: deadtroll; trolltard; trollzot; zot; zotmeagain; zotmehard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: Las Vegas Ron

We never sleep...


21 posted on 09/04/2015 8:52:44 AM PDT by Old Sarge (I prep because DHS and FEMA told me it was a good idea...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: formerRepublicant

“It implies that obedience to divine law is somehow baked in to one’s constitutional duties and obligations.”

It more than “implies” it. It demands it.


22 posted on 09/04/2015 8:58:05 AM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Federal law trumps state law.

I don't believe there is a Fed law on homo marriage, only that they recognize it for purposes of benefits.

SCOTUS only struck down state laws that do not recognize homo marriage thereby nullifying them and leaving them without any authority to recognize any marriage at all. So in this case Davis is completely correct in what she is doing.

To be clear, I don't believe the Fed has any Constitutional authority what so ever in this and in my opinion it is strictly a State issue, KY should tell the Feds to go pound sand.

23 posted on 09/04/2015 8:58:44 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: shibumi; Old Sarge; Darksheare
Old Sarge, Darksheare and a few others of us have a “watch list” you might say.

I'd like to see it, maybe I'll have a few for them to add in case they missed them.

24 posted on 09/04/2015 9:01:39 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: shibumi; Las Vegas Ron; Old Sarge

I keep nothing in bits and bytes.


25 posted on 09/04/2015 9:10:19 AM PDT by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

What happened to darwing104 and 50mm?

Are they no longer doing the kitty list?


26 posted on 09/04/2015 9:15:54 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104; 50mm

Oops, meant to include you guys...


27 posted on 09/04/2015 9:17:20 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Been busy from what I understand.


28 posted on 09/04/2015 9:17:24 AM PDT by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Understand, thanks!


29 posted on 09/04/2015 9:18:07 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

My smert debice does that every now and then, decides to “correct” things on me to the point it drops what I’ve pasted or typed.


30 posted on 09/04/2015 9:18:23 AM PDT by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Posting from phones is a real challenge.


31 posted on 09/04/2015 9:19:44 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

As far as the feds are concerned, it isn’t - nor is it in my home state of Washington. That said, busting marijuana smokers is simply a poor allocation of resources - that’s why more states are looking at legalization. The other thing that legalization does is encourage local production, eliminating the incentive to smuggle.


32 posted on 09/04/2015 9:24:03 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

I don’t want to get in a big argument over gay marriage, but basically what the SC said was this was an equal protection issue.


33 posted on 09/04/2015 9:27:34 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron; Darksheare
You guys need to get yourselves a state-of-the-art Interociter -


34 posted on 09/04/2015 9:28:20 AM PDT by shibumi ("Have you driven a Fnord lately?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stormer
I didn't mean to come off argumentative, sorry if I did, I did want to point out though that effectively, KY now has no marriage law and therefore no authority to issue any license. Until the legislature passes new law in accordance with the SCOTUS dictate, then she is correct in what she is doing. IMHO

If the legislature passes a marriage law that she does not agree with in her religious conviction, then she'll have to decide what to do at that point.

I still would love to see KY tell the SCOTUS to eff off and mind their own business.

35 posted on 09/04/2015 9:34:20 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Aggravating, irritating, and often rage inducing.


36 posted on 09/04/2015 9:34:37 AM PDT by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: formerRepublicant
The State is establishing a religion "Secular Humanism"

"John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In fact, claiming that Humanism was "the new religion" was trendy for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue.

http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm

37 posted on 09/04/2015 9:36:06 AM PDT by jpsb (Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

Hehe...I always thought those were Disgronifiers...


38 posted on 09/04/2015 9:36:16 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: formerRepublicant

You and the author both forgot:

Article 6 of the US Constitution: NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.
First amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.


39 posted on 09/04/2015 11:17:18 AM PDT by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson